ABC's Iowa Debate Round Up
Here's a video round up of ABC's debate on Sunday. I especially liked Mike Gravel's response when he said:
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Bill)
Gravel: When Democrats buy into 'the problem of Iran,' they just help Vice President Cheney, who should be committed with his recent statements."
The Democratic Party has got to stop echoing these talking points because if Bush/Cheney/Kristol attack Iran, the American public will not know what is propaganda and what is truth.
Eric Kleefeld covers all the highlights for us...
This morning's ABC News Democratic debate in Des Moines was very good in a lot of ways, with some of the most substantive discussions of policy that we've seen at any televised debate up until now....read on
• George Stephanopoulos again opened the debate by introducing the candidates according to their poll numbers. The figures: Obama 27%, Clinton 26%, Edwards 26%, a three-way statistical tie, followed by Bill Richardson at 11%. Fun fact: Mike Gravel did not have the support of even one respondent.
• Hillary Clinton stood by her opposition to Barack Obama's position on meeting with hostile foreign leaders: "Well, George, we had a specific disagreement because I do not think that a president should give away the bargaining chip of a personal meeting with any leader unless you know what you're going to get out of that."
• Joe Biden stood by his statement that the presidency is not a place that lends itself to on-the-job training.
• Bill Richardson had a decent line: "You know I think that Senator Obama does represent change. Senator Clinton has experience. Change and experience — with me, you get both." The line was met by a mixture of laughter and applause.
• Chris Dodd stuck to his denunciations of Obama's proposals on Pakistan. "The only person that separates us from a jihadist government in Pakistan with nuclear weapons is President Musharaf," Dodd said. "And therefore I thought it was irresponsible to engage in that kind of a suggestion here. That's dangerous — words mean something in campaigns."
• Barack Obama had his own flippant opening line, casting some light on the absurdity of the nominating process: "You know, to prepare for this debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair." He then gave a substantive defense of his proposal to cross the Pakistani border if necessary to catch Osama bin Laden, calling it "common sense."
• On the subject of nuclear weapons, John Edwards said, "What America should do, and what I would do as president, is to actually lead an international effort to eliminate nuclear weapons from the planet. That's the way to make the planet more secure."
• Mike Gravel got some applause for this one: "When Democrats buy into 'the problem of Iran,' they just help Vice President Cheney, who should be committed with his recent statements."
• Dennis Kucinich was quite openly irked that Stephanopoulos didn't call on him until 26 minutes into the program: "Actually, George, this debate is insufficient, because you're really not including all the candidates here, and you're trying to polarize people out of the race."
• Kucinich said the well-known hedge fund Fortress Investment Group was poised to do well under any health plan that didn't replace the current system wit a government run program — a clear jab at John Edwards, who has worked for Fortress. He then talked about how he is the only candidate who would completely replace the current profit-driven health care system with a not-for-profit government run system with a guarantee of universal access.
• Bill Richardson said a withdrawal from Iraq can and should be done in six to eight months. "I believe that if you leave any residual forces, then none of the peace that we are trying to bring can happen."
• Joe Biden sharply differed, saying a quick withdrawal would only ignore a wider regional war that would cause more damage. "My reaction is, that it's time to start to level with the American people," Biden said. "This administration hasn't been doing it for seven years. We should." Biden also cited Yugoslavia as an example of how to do it right, keeping a force there that separates the warring parties without incurring casualties.
• Hillary Clinton sided more with Biden: "This is a massive, complicated undertaking, and we do have to do it as carefully and responsibly as possible."
• Barack Obama sided with Biden on the idea that getting out of Iraq will be a long and difficult process, but made sure to get in a dig against Biden and the other candidates: "The thing that I wish would have happened is that all the people on this stage had asked these questions before they authorized us getting in." Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd all voted to authorize the war in 2002.
• A question from a viewer in Salt Lake City asked the candidates whether they believed in the power of intercessionary prayer — the idea that God can stop a bad thing from happening or make it less severe, such as a hurricane or a bridge collapse. All the candidates gave various lines about how prayer can give people a measure of strength, but only John Edwards and Joe Biden said bluntly that prayer cannot stop a bad event. When it was Dennis Kucinich's turn, he shot back at Stephanopoulos, "George, I've been standing here for the last 45 minutes praying that you were going to call on me," and then looked upwards as if to say God answered his prayers.
• John Edwards criticized trade deals: "The question seems to have been on past trade agreements like NAFTA: Is this trade agreement good for the profits of big multinational corporations?" Instead, he said he would ask the question, "Is this good for middle-class working families in America...
"...who should be committed..."???
He should jailed, tried, convicted, and sent to Club Gitmo (Tm).
GRAVELOCITY!
I really hated the question about prayer stopping tragedy. I was glad that Edwards and a few others (after parading their religious credentials) said, "no." Richardson gave the answer I would have given: a polite 'none of your business,'
Overall the answers I liked best came from Richardson - too bad he's so far down. Maybe an Edwards/Richardson ticket?
I'm a feminist, and I'd love to see a woman president, but I can't get excited about Hillary. Plus I don't want 24 - 28 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. Too much dynasty - feels un-American.
I like Kucinich, but the PTB (power that be) would bury him. They practically made Clinton ineffective. They'd easily take Kucinich down. None of the top tier Dems are any different than some of the Republicans that are running. This whole thing sucks. Big money has to be pushed out of Washington before any real change can happen. In fact, big money has to end. The wealthy in our country as the new aristocracy and look at the rest of us as if we were ants.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."- Thomas Jefferson
Drop the God stuff and Thomas Jefferson has the ONLY solution to our problem except our country, in general, is too f*cking lazy to make it happen.
Is this debate not available anywhere online??
C-span was going to rerun it a couple of times yesterday, it might still be at their site.
I too was proud of Edwards when he answered the prayer question. Good for him to have the guts to give the insane question a sane answer.
To me the most moving part of the debate was when Sen Dodd talked about the time he wished he could change something he did. He was speaking straight from the heart and it showed.
Ads on the margins are fine.
Ads within the editorial content are a huge annoyance.
I loathe Bill Maher, regardless.
I loved Gravel's prayer answer....
something to the effect that
'All these people doin' the praying are the ones starting the wars'....
There was a tangible silence in the room, as if
everyone had been bitch-slapped with a huge
moment of truth....
That's the problem with Gravel, he's entertaining. He really shouldn't be part of these debates any more. I'm not dismissing *what* he says, just that it shouldn't be part of the Presidential candidate process. He's not a serious candidate, he has only one issue that he has any great opinion on, no issues of which he knows the specifics of in any great detail and he's failed to show the ability to lead and generate substantial support. He's polling at 0% in Iowa. *I* am polling at 0% in Iowa. Neither of should be in the Presidential debates. But, if he or I wish to make our 'cause known we have a myriad of other avenues.
Chris @ 5:
I posted the complete ABC News Iowa Democratic Debate here (55 min).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6355773023591053612&hl=en
TPM has more video highlights
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/024671.php
"the American public will not know what is propaganda and what is truth"
Might want to check your verb tense there.
Go Gravel, too bad people like Gravel, Kucinich and Ron Paul are not taken seriously by the so called left blogs. These guys are the true voices of the antiwar movement and its being drowned out by lesser important things. I used to be a democrat but now I am just fed up with all politics. While I am for abortions, and some other liberal points I am willing to sacrifice them if we can end this war. This is the single most disastrous thing to happen this country during a time of relative peace. Instead of going after Saudia Arabia and Bin Laden both the Repubs and Dems go after countries that had very little if anything to do with 9/11. Ron Paul is correct when he says this is the single most important moral problem with america today. Since when does America outright come out and support preemptive war, i know in the past we have been fooled with Korea and Vietnam, but this is going too far, Iraq and now this. Do the people in the media not realize the same idiots who told us of WMD in iraq are the same idiots telling us iran will have a nuke in 6 months...ughh...sorry guys just venting but we gotta get up and realize that most of these dems are just as crooked and lie just as much as the repugs we ceaselessly criticize...its just so frustrating.
Wah happened? Hillary all the way over on the end? If memory serves shes always been in the center. Hah.
How is Iowa representative of the nation? Aren't they mostly ower to middle-class, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants?
The most interesting statement said during the debate.
"I don't believe you can change this country without taking on very entrenched interests in Washington, including lobbyists," Edwards said. Still can't understand why ABC declared Dennis Kucinich as the winner http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=366
lower middle-class, who I'm sure are feeling a lot of owies.
Yes, the problem, as has been stated much more eloquently than I could hope to by Sibler months ago (even featured here on C&L, although I forget the exact post) is that engaging in the Iraq War debate the way most everyone on the left does is a losing proposition.
The only correct way to talk about the Iraq War is not to quibble over the effectiveness of such mindless non-policy such as the surge, or the validity of psuedo-intellectualisms such as 'Last Throes' is to actually talk about the REAL problem with the Iraq War.
It is immoral.
A war of aggression against a people who did not attack us.
It is wrong, and always has been.
All of the rest of the discussion surrounding the Iraq War is screaming into the void at best, and setting yourself up for defeat at the hands of dishonest chickenhawk coWard-bullies who are praying that you open that very door.
Hillary was not entirely correct with her "we know how to win" comment.
truth be told, the GOP and its myriad think-tanks are much more adept at winning elections than the Dems.
truth be told, their pipe dream policies and pseudo-heroic stunts ultimately wake people up and then they lose.
I have no doubt the public will lull back to sleep and the GOP will make a hell of a run at the next presidency.
lord, I hope I'm wrong!
Kucinich supporters freeped that poll for sure. He barely had a chance to speak. He sure as hell didn't win the debate.
All this prayer crapola.
Does anyone ever raise the point that Cheney is an atheist?
If we don't fight to get K-man, we'll get the preznitwit we deserve. phuck the msm!
Arroyo @ 20:
why not just pray for impeachment?
Narenda - sorry, I'm NOT willing to sacrifice my body or my daughters and granddaughters bodies to end the war. As to other liberal points - one of the best reasons for universal health care has nothing to do with liberal. In the event of a pandemic like Bird Flu lack of health insurance will increase everyone's risk. People without insurance are far less likely to go to the doctor or the hospital as early symptoms present. They go to work, to the store, to school and spread the infection for a longer time. When they do go for medical care they are sicker, more expensive to treat, and need to be cared for longer.
I agree the war needs to end, now, but I think we as citizens have lost enough of our rights as it is - not giving up anything else.
Gravel gave some ridiculous answers. He's a distraction. Unfortunately, I agree with others here who have said that Kucinichwould be swallowed up by the job because I agree with him. I am an Edwards supporter because he is speaking what needs to be spoken right now.
I'm amazed by the obsession with the horse-race aspect of this. The candidates are introduced and allowed to speak based on their polling numbers which--everyone would agree-are meaningless right now. People aren't willing to engage in substance because we have to go with how the polls in Iowa months ahead of time are going. Read about the 2004 campaign and you'll see that many of the candidates were driving in vans around right now.
justabill @ 19:
And you don't think the other candidates had their staffers doing the same?
Edwards: "Any Democratic president will end this war."
Thats a likely story. All the Democrats in the Congress just keep giving Bush more of what he wants. Time, money, etc. Sen. Edwards, that route is not firm footing in my book.
GB @ 25:
Apparently not. lol
"• Barack Obama had his own flippant opening line, casting some light on the absurdity of the nominating process: “You know, to prepare for this debate I rode in the bumper cars at the state fair.”
When Obama made that comment he was referring to all the previous digs that had been made about him. George had just mentioned all the negative comments about him that morning and before. He had been asking each of the candidates to explain the criticism they had made of Obama. He had been taking hits from all around him on the stage and that's why he said the comment about riding in bumper cars.
justabill: Thanks for posting the debate for those of us who missed it. Much appreciated!
seriously...a vote for hillary(and a few other dems) is no different then say voting for cheney if he were to run...giuliani or romney etc...these ppl take marching orders from the same master.
A couple of times during the debate Gravel went off on some litany of words and I don't think anyone in the world could have followed his thought. I feel he should step down now before he totally embarrasses himself. After some of his answers yesterday, it may be too late.
Powkat @ 3:
I'm sick of tired of this prayer nonsense. Get on your knees, pary and hope it won't happen again. Its OK to pray, but do something else. Do what other countries do. Try to analyze the problem and build solutions to the problem. For mine disasters, work on engineering and safety solutions. For disasters like New Orleans, get the Dutch engineers to give us a solution. They had similar problems in Holland. Instead of praying, they fixed them. Other countries are passing us by.
I don't like dynasties either. We, as a society are degenerating into an elite oligarchy. There is no need for this with a population of 300 million.
I liked it when they were questioning if Obama have the experience neccesary to be president, and he pointed out that noone had more experience that Cheney and Rumsfeld when going into iraq. I think it brings up a great point that maybe we don't need a washington dinosaur running for president again.
the conventional wisdom of nominating a "person who can get elected" has been the great american sell-out, IMHO.
down with partisanship, and up with americanship. [coin?]
it is a way for the corporations to ensure that nothing rocks their boat. a way to ensure that there isn't a prez candidate that actually voices the concerns of the people (as in We the People...). when it comes down to issues and credibility there is no better candidate than kucinich. and, like polling has shown, when americans are polled on issues alone kucinich comes out on top.
if this were an issues-race, i have no doubt that kucinich could win the election. but, thanks to corporate influence, this is NOT--nor never will be--about real issues.
the hillary/obama/edwards vote is for status quo. again, IMHO. in fact, hillary scares the crap out of me.
kucinich '08
pissed off is correct:
Obama was NOT flippantly commenting on the process but simply on the preceeding minutes of "what we say he said" (and didn't say). It was a genuine moment.
There are fascist poster-children, Ahminadejead is one, who attempt to become our favorite fascist for however long they can last. We love the double-game. The current war is manifesting as a trio of elements.
For those who enjoy such pastimes as reading, try "Cairo to Damascus" by John Roy Carlson circ. 1951 and don't bother thinking it does not pertain to what fans of the "everything changed after 9-11" call their "new" reality. The liasons of 1933 Germany National Socialist Party have their familial counterparts all over the middle east and most certainly did during the second war.
There still is that war, so to speak. Calll it what you will.
Samson- @ 34:
I second that!
Two equal a debate, but six equals a hootenanny. And please God, don't let them sing.
So I'm listening to Wesley Clark this morning on Stephanie Miller's show. His advice was to start negotiation, but watch out for Iran and it's surrogates in Iraq. Stephanie came back, stating that most killings of American soldiers were by Saudi Arabian-supported Sunni militias and by dissident/partisan elements in the newly-constituted Iraqi Army. Clark came back with his insistance that the military's major effort should against Iranian influence and agents. Is Clark so far off? Is this the new pro-military stance that we all must salute or is there any truth to combat this?
From me, another thing of concern in the area is that religious minorities (i.e. Christians) are now being given the "convert to Islam or die, Infidel" (and give us all of your money) by the militias. Christian religious are just killed. Is there any plan to save these people?
I don't buy Edwards' claim that the differences between the Democratic candidates are small. I think the differences between some of the candaidates and the Republicans are indeed very small.
Kucinich and gravel speak closest to, or with, the truth to me.
I think that what should be stressed here is that things should not be anywhere near as much a matter of experience as they should be matters of character. Character will always make a sure guide when experience fails. Without character, experience is rudderless. If this becomes a matter of character, that automatically disqualifies the corporatists, because they have demonstrated that they lack character.
Kucinich was very right when he spoke about who has consistently stood up to do the right thing, at the time the right thing needed doing, and those who haven't. that is an example of character. And of courage.
Why was Stephanopoulos moderating/interviewing? He was Hillary's husband's senior advisor for policy and strategy. Isn't there a conflict of interest here?!?!
Pete @ 17:
Extremely well said. This trumps all the other reasons so-called liberal Democrats use when they talk about the war. Since the war was illegal in the first place because it violated the UN Charter, the Geneva convention, the U.S. Constitution, and the Nuremberg Principles, it makes absolutely no sense for the U.S. military to remain either in Iraq or, to use Murtha's phrase, over the horizon. The Democrats also have to talk more about how all that money being spent on the occupation could be better spent her at home, on education, government run health care, schools, libraries, infrastructure, etc. As for those who say that Kucinich does not have a chance at the nomination, if that mantra is said long enough, it then ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Get those troops out of that abattoir and bring them home safely-now.
Patthemokey @ 37:
Would you rather they do the Macarena?
PollM @ 15:
Nice clip, Dennis speaks to the core.
"May the Force be with you...."
I thought this would be a debate, not an Obama-Hillary Comedy Hour. Pathetic. Well, what else would I expect, its on television.
I'm still waiting for a politico to say, "I'll pull you up, as you send me up to the White House, so our new slogan is, Up Yours!"
[...] Clark ABC’s Iowa Debate Round Up » This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Monday, August 20, 2007 This [...]
If I were president, I'd appoint Gravel as secretary of the Department for Cleansing Us of the Neocon Tragedy.
I kind of like the acronym you get from this one - and I swear, it was accidental.
Paul C @ 38:
Not unless the current administration can exploit them by doing so.
HDon @ 40:
No, in fact the opposite--Hillary fired his ass.....
"Gravel: When Democrats buy into ‘the problem of Iran,’ they just help Vice President Cheney, who should be committed with his recent statements.”
It doesn't help when CNN correspondents keep asking military spokesmen why we don't attack Iranian training camps or other facilities. The answer is usually, "because their aren't any good targets". The answer should be, "because that would be an act of war stupid"
Freakaloin @ 30:
Honestly, I have to disagree here. I am no Hill or Obama fan but this administration, the President and the Vice President, is comprised of insane people. Bush is a completely brain-addled, dry drunk, megalomaniacal idiot and Cheney is the evil genius, hell-bent on world-domination.
And just listen to the completely unbalanced rhetoric of most of the republican candidates.
We may elect another corporate master on the Dem side, but he or she will be sane and balanced. Unless, of course, we end up with Mitt Romney.
Dennis Kucinich has no chance unless he joins the
crew of ' Girls Gone Wild ' & his one issue is prayer.
Funny but Denny knows he hasn't a prayer :-) but
there he stands, the Democrats Ron Paul. Christ!!
ABC manages their comment thread as well as they managed the debate. I have commented only to see my non offensive comment deleted. Posted again only to see that deleted.
Obviously, ABC wants to control the message of the public on the candidates, the message from the candidates to the public and influence the election. How evil and un-American.
Gravell has balls now that he need us but if his polls numbers were high he'd be like the rest.
Richardson, who has long been one of my favorite candidates and my dark horse pick, is really starting to lose me with his 6-8 months line. The best person I have heard speak on this (in various forums) is Rep. Joe Sestak(D-PA). He not only supports both a set-withdrawl date but one ASAP. He led a huge ship brigade(?) into the region for both the Iraq and Afganistan war. He, while actually explanining everything that needs to be done for a smart and safe withdrawl, says that the best we can hope for is a one year withdrawl period, but more likely one and a half to two years. I have no reason to believe that he is being misleading with this or wants the troops home any less quicker than Richardson.
Whatever happened to calling this "war" what it is - an occupation.
.
This whole debate circuit IS a circus, IMHO.
It's the dog and pony show... the Hillary and Obama hour.
Let's talk about Hillary... now let's talk about Obama... What does Dodd say about Hillary and Obama... what does Richardson say about Hillary and Obama... Edwards' view on Hillary and Obama... notice how the focus for the first 45 minutes WAS about Hillary and Obama? Wonder why? We should.
And what does prayer have anything to do with politics?
G.W. Bush said he prayed for guidance on Afghanistan and then again on Iraq... How's those prayers going?
And IF the USA is supposed to be a Christian Nation then:
WHO WOULD JESUS BOMB NEXT?
HOW MUCH DID JESUS CHARGE FOR HIS HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
WHAT NON-BELIEVERS DID JESUS DISPARAGE FOR NOT AGREEING WITH HIS VIEWS?
.
these debates only serve the media and the republican party they own the tv stations , they put on shitty moderaters asking crappy questions trying to get the democrats gnawing at each others throuts and you can be dam sure any gaffs or subjects where they screw up on and they can use against them will be splashed on the news every god damned twenty seconds dureing the main election run, its very evident they dont want us to hear anything kucinich says ,a man who speaks the truths not worth listening to and might harm the people the corporations have lined up for you to vote for , their ramming hillery and obamma up your fanny like an enama nozzel , enjoy the bowel movement youll wind up with in 09 when hillery or some pig like jullie takes over the whitehouse and reap the whirl wind of four more wars !!
Dennis says what we all want to hear but does he have the strength to get those things done? Could he get the congress to go along with his desires? I'm not sure.
I'm watching this debate and I'm getting upset...
I want even or close to even time between the candidates.
David Schuster...where are you?!! =[
pissed off patricia @ 57:
Well let's see...
Opposing the unilateral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation? ... check.
Responsible accountability of a criminal and lawless Administration? ... check.
A not for profit, universal health care system? ... check.
That, right there, is more than Obama, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards COMBINED.
Why do people doubt those that actually act on creating change in favor of those that merely give lip service to prospects of change?
What kind of person promises to be honest... tomorrow?
What kind of person promises to act tomorrow on what is before them today?
.
What do you mean they won't know??? THEY DON'T KNOW NOW. And a frighteningly large portion don't give a damn about the difference.
Max-1 @ 59:
[...] Clark ABC’s Iowa Debate Round Up » This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Monday, August 20, 2007 This [...]
President Eddie Haskell and Vice President Lumpy Rutherford. Leave it to Brush-cutter and Dead-eye...
I'm surprised that more people don't seem to like Gravel. Certainly he's crotchety and will never be elected, but I find that he's most willing to tell the unsolicited truth. Religion has been used as a weapon by the U.S. and its enemies, when any self-respecting individual will tell you that it is an immensely personal thing. (And this is coming from a staunch atheist!)
Gravel was also correct with regard to Iran. Does no one realise that the U.S. has stockades of nuclear weapons and is also the most hated nation on the planet (or close to it)? The nation was founded by individuals looking to escape an empire, dangit!
I believe that Gravel ought to stick around because more often than not, he exposes the hypocrisy, false modesty, and outright lies of those who smile and offer statements approved by their personal strategists.
Doggiebobo @ 61:
My comment wasn't on the persuasive but on the accomplishments... or lack there of.
IF CONNEDgress isn't persuaded, then we need to examine the electorate and why they aren't persuasive enough.
Who's Congress?
The president's?
If that is what you are suggesting here, you would be wrong. And it is exactly why the first six years of the BushCo got what THEY wanted, not what America needed or desired.
.
Well, blow me down. Richardson is for full withdrawal? Hmm. Why isn't he getting more play? Why aren't the antiwar blogs chatting him up? So what if he's a member of the Bohemian Club and the Council on Foreign Relations. If he's for full withdrawal, then he's for full withdrawal. O wait, Dubya also ran on a humble, no-nation-building foreign policy. Maybe you just can't trust what these candidate's say, especially if they are affiliated with certain think tanks and special interest groups. I guess that leaves us with all the 2nd tier geeks. They aren't the cool kids, so they get left out of the spotlight, but they always seem to make the most sense and be the most honest. I wish the general public out there would begin to see that and realize what they are doing by voting for the "cool kid."
Please. Please Democratic primary voters, please vote for Kucinich (or even Gravel). Please?
The front runners get a pant load just thinking about be upfront with the American people on Iran. The fringe candidates have nothing to loose by being candid. It's unfortunate that honesty and truth is a hail mary pass.
GB @ 4:
A bit defeatist, no? Here's why Kucinich would NOT be easily buried by the powers that be: he is unshakably honest, courageous, and principled; and he's always the most intelligent and well-read candidate on the stage. In a head-to-head debate he could be shockingly effective. Leaders like Clinton are easy to attack because they are political animals -- their ambition and "ends justify the means" brand of politics opens them up to criticism (legitimate and illegitimate) from all sides. Kucinich, on the other hand, has unassailable credibility and character. I believe that if Democrats actually gave him a chance and he got the nomination, he would be a formidable opponent.
Look at the current criticisms of Kucinich. They boil down to a couple points. Either he "isn't electable" or his positions are "out of the mainstream." Neither of these are substantive criticisms, and the great thing about Kucinich is that he is willing to engage in any substantive criticisms people do have on his positions.
PollM @ 15:
I've always found it funny how Edwards talks about taking on entrenched power when it comes to lobbyists hurting the common good, but not when it comes to the private health care companies hurting the common good. HMOs are not going to behave better. They aren't going to freely give up their power (which resulted from screwing the sick, and is used to screw more of the sick for profits). You're going to have to take that power away from them with a publicly funded health care system in the same way that you're going to have to take lobbyist money out of politics. Good to know Edwards can't see the obvious similarities between his positions on healthcare and lobbyists...
Gravel tells the 'truth'... only he's dyslexic and he tends to assume that everyone will acknowledge the raw truth, so he does not bother wrapping it in fancy. He's also extremely stubborn when he thinks he's right, which is one of the reason why almost every Dem in the establishment would rather have him out (to put it gently). Only Obama and Dennis actually like him. It's a mystery to me why he doesn't get more support from the progressive side of the public, if only because he's about the only candidate who will not blow your contribution money buying advertisement on Fox, ABC, etc. ... thus making them even more powerful.
Kucinich wins the online poll for the debate, and then C&L runs a clip of highlights that shows Dennis speaking for about five seconds out of the whole piece. That's real objective reporting. Sometimes I don't see the difference bwt Fox New and the liberal blogs. Everybody's got an agenda huh?
[...] the Webmaster ABC’s Iowa Debate Round Up » This article link is from an article posted at Crooks and Liars on Monday, August 20, 2007 This [...]
Big E @ 8:
Amen Brother.
Fred @ 9:
Gotta love Gravel. He is there to keep things honest. It is so refreshing to hear someone speak the truth. He knows he doesn't stand a chance at winning. Yeah, I say he stays.
It's kinda tough to get points across when the moderator has more speech time than the candidate. As the graph trend shows, the more progressive the candidate, the less time they got. It's all for show.
It's really sad that the supposed left blogosphere is a sham. There is no left blogosphere anymore. A vote for Hillary or Edwards or Obama is a vote to continue the same corporate politics that the mainstream Dems have always fronted. It's obvious that the false progressives are too afraid to vote their conscience anymore. I have more respect for the ultra conservatives. At least they vote consistently with their beliefs. The pseudo progressives talk like Kucinich, then call him an elf, and support corporate whores. The same dog an pony show is going down as it has in the past, and the progressive blogosphere just plays right along. It will be the destruction of the progressive movement from the internet. Most left leaning websites will be relgated to the dustbin of history for this. Sure, you can chat with your fellow lawyers or journalists, but the slide to imperial disintegration will continue.
Couscous @ 73:
Yeah...
Powkat @ 23:
Brilliant statement. Anyone against national health care is against national security.
Ev Boyle @ 70:
Take a look at some of his positions, for instance his stance on abortions and the death penalty. He talks up culture of life and makes you questions the coherency of your beliefs. Through strategies like this, Kucinich could do a political-reach-around and consolidate a more meaningful majority.
I have been monitoring Dennis Kucinich's voting record for several years. His name appeared on every bill that was introduced by John Conyers Jr. to hold this administration accountable, back when the Dems were in the minority. John Conyers has since betrayed us all, but I believe that Dennis Kucinich was not blowing smoke when he signed onto those bills.
I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries of 2004. I had barely heard of Kerry, until he mysteriously came out the winner in the primaries. A contrived plan between Skull & Bones brothers? We may never know. I believe Dennis Kucinich is the real deal! :-)
Che's Lounge @ 76:
I'm seriously doubting I will ever be able to bring myself to vote for Hillary. I just don't believe she's a Democrat. The Democrats keep saying, just vote us in next time and then we'll accomplish something (this includes Obama who refused to vote to filibuster Alito saying that's why it's important to vote for us next time). We voted them in last time and, while they have accomplished some things, they refuse to do the most important thing--uphold the Constitution. It is their duty to hold impeachment hearings.
As to the questions re: faith and prayer that have become some kind of test during debates all I can say is, "AAAGGGGHHHH!!" Do the faithful really believe that all it takes is prayer? It really doesn't occur to them that a higher power gave us brains in order to come up with good solutions to seemingly overwhelming problems? For me, these kind of questions should not be part of a political debate and no, I am not an atheist.
timmm @ 81:
Seriously... Stephanopolis was trying to get a 'lively' debate going between the front runners and only succeeded in rehashing/reinforcing dominant storylines. Nothing new was uncovered.
Blogs, good blogs at least, are valuable in the way they are expose the uncritical, dominating activities of MSM. I tend to agree with post above and wonder if the dominant blogs in the lefto-sphere will seek to provide critical analysis this campaign season???
hope @ 83:
Amen brother! And yes, I am an atheist. :-)
Sherry @ 85:
Amazing--I keep hearing we shouldn't respect or agree with each other unless we believe the exact same things. Wouldn't you love to be a mind reader in a church service for just a few minutes. Bet none of them believe the exact same thing--not possible (I hope).
Che's Lounge @ 77:
This comment is right on. We are years beyond the point where any moderately sane, progressive person should be able to pretend, even to themselves, that going with a status quo, corporate-friendly whore like SHilary, Obama (& to a lesser extent, Edwards, who's at least talking a good game about poverty in the U.S., enraging the corporate powers-that-be, not that he'd necessarily be a 2nd FDR or really likely do anything for the non-elite if he got elected) will pay off.
The empire is tearing itself to pieces with this insane war of aggression. The odds are 90% plus that Chimp-Cheney will broaden the war to Iran (poss. with nukes) prior to leaving with the looted assets of our Treasury in '09, and many "leaders" in the blogosphere want to believe:
that SHillary is "sane" & will manage the endless debacle of Iraq occupation better than Chimpy & Co. (when her hubby's so tight w/ Daddy Bush)
Who remembers 2004-- not so long ago, was it? Chimpy's Skull & Bones brother Kerry was supposed to be "electable" & he went on to debate Little Boots while (Kerry) made claims like "Saddam was a clear threat to the U.S."
And we're gonna make the same mistake of getting another corporate sell-out, elite scumbag like SHillary to be the "opposition" candidate? I will not vote for any war-supporter, ever, under any circumstances. If the blogosphere does wish to make itself wholly irrelevant it should support these tinker-with-the-formula technocrats while the house is burning down!
I live in Calif. and won't get to vote in a primary til Feb. but hope someone w/ actual integrity (Kucinich, Gravel) is still in the running. Voting's prob. not much more efficacious than getting down on your knees & praying to some big Daddy Sky-God at this pt., but meaningless as it may be at least I won't hate myself for supporting more of the same, Biden, SHillary et al.
hope @ 86:
I agree. Yes I would like to be a mind reader for just one Sunday. :-) Judging from the hypocrisy shown by many evangelists, such as Swaggart, Bakker, Ted Haggard, etc., I think a lot of people just pretend, so they can fit in. It is human nature to want to belong to a group. Our survival has always depended on being part of a larger group. We are herd animals I guess. But, blind faith scares me. Some think that taking a moment to pray, absolves them of any need to take action. This is really scary.
Anybody know where I can see a vid of the whole debate?? I missed it yesterday and I'm trying to play it on cspan.org but its not working.
[...] more on the debate, see this Crooks and Liars article. Obama had a good debate. His best debate performance so far. Stood up to sustained questioning on [...]
Sherry @ 88:
While I haven't taken part in organized religion since I graduated h.s. (much to the consternation of a certain family member who is certain I'll be "left behind"), I do know many biblical characters' faith can only be described as "hard-won". I agree blind faith is, at best, lazy but mostly scary. I sometimes think it would be so much easier (better for blood pressure, holes in my wall, money spent on cocktails) if I could just believe all politicians had my best interest at heart, were keeping me safe, and all I had to attend to was my little world. It still amazes me what's-his-name" still has a double digit approval rating. Those people think using brain power is a waste of time or too painful. And that's why I usually can't resist flipping off people that still have Bush/Cheney bumper stickers. People have become proud of their stupidity.
Why is Hillary Clinton included in the debates? Can anyone explain THAT to me?
Gravel seems to have the talking point correct.
Don't overlook Syria either. Cheney and his daughter are up to something along with Israel. We should look at any of the countries in the Middle East as being vulnerable to conflict exploding as a result of neocon meddling.
Huffington already looks like an issue of TV Guide. I'm disgusted by the blogosphere's willingness to follow along with the MSM by focusing on the top 3 candidates, as defined by the MSM. The real progressives will fall by the wayside and we'll get more of the same old same old.
Absolutely none of them have experience at being "President". First Lady is in the ballpark stands, Senators are in the seats, Govenors usually do the small scale stuctures of the peoples work.
And yes, I would respect any of them including Mike Gravel as President. Until or unless they gave me a reason not to.
They are indeed a step foreward and up over any of the republicans. If I had to be stuck with a Republican. maybe Huckabee. Lets hope (and for those that care to pray) that it won't come to another Republican.....................
The problem with long elections is that the front runners pander to every conceivable group of ideologues, ending up standing for nothing.
86 Recusancy Says: Anybody know where I can see a vid of the whole debate?? I missed it yesterday and I’m trying to play it on cspan.org but its not working.
The full debate can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CSPANJUNKIEdotORG
Kucinich isn't heard from until Part 4. Sad real sad.
Arroyo @ 20:
That last word should be spelled "Methodist".
Kucinich is the only real candidate in this race. Watch his videos and listen. You'll see.
Watch his interview at the logo/HRC debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVd5U_aLM0A
You will see a real man speaking like an adult.
It's so true what Gravel said...and people have the nerve to call him crazy. When he said in the first forum "these people frighten me" he wasn't kidding and this points to why.
To Dr Matt: and that's what Gravel wants to do with his plan to get out of Iraq. Check it out sometime if you can at his website at http://www.gravel2008.us He claims he can bring the troops home by Christmas and if Cheney, Rice, Bush etc. don't agree to the plan and it overrides a veto they would be criminals and have to spend some actual time in jail. Imagine that one!
I just love it when other people online in blogs, forums etc are saying Gravel isn't a real democrat but I think this forum proves he is just as much a democrat than anyone else if not more of one. The Democratic party is running to the so-called "religious right" in this country when they should be standing up for the first amendment. Gravel apparently is the only one who truly doesn't mess around on the issue and isn't afraid of standing up. No wonder so many people want to get rid of him...because he makes them so uncomfortable but that's what the truth will do to you.
To Fred: I guess at this point in time (August of 2007) in 1991 you would've kicked out Bill Clinton who was polling and doing the same as Mike Gravel and in 2003 you would've kicked out John Kerry. You're going over style over substance and that's just very shallow. As Mike Gravel often says: "stop and think" which is what so many people wanting to kick out Gravel need to do. What about Biden? Kucinich? Dodd? They're polling the same as Gravel in the national polls and sometimes Richardson is a long them. So are you going to kick them out? I somehow don't think so. Get over it. It's called a primary season and you're there to debate and try to get a job not there to make nice and be friends. So as Gravel says: stop and think.
Why should Ron Paul be considered by leftwing blogs? He's a rightwinger libertarian. Doy. On your point with Gravel and Kucinich they should be looked at just as the same as Clinton, Obama, Edwards etc. So of course Ron Paul isn't going to be considered by leftwingers. Good grief.
So it was a ridiculous answer to say that the democrats are enabling Cheney with war with Iran when they support him and buy his crap? Hardly. Unlike some people Gravel sees bullshit when it's bullshit while others only claim to see bullshit when it suits them.
These things aren't debates but more like q&a forums. They aren't allowed to debate each other etc. like they do in some other country's. I would love to see David Schuster moderate one of these forums. He would be great!
Yes Richardson has been for a full withdraw for a little while now and his main thing is how he's going to make sure that there are no loopholes for anyone to stay in Iraq which is great.
I also wanted to add that Richardson gets the least amount of time with people like Gravel does: there's some issues people don't agree with him on so they ignore him completley even though he has the most experience out of everybody.
To Sherry: Kerry just did the hard work and campaigned and showed up at the forums. Go to http://www.archive.org and type in "John Kerry" and look for video's from him there. When he had rallies etc he had good crowds show up. Also watch Alexandra Pelosi's documentary "Diary of a Political Tourist." The media told us in 2003/2004 that Dean was going to be the winner but it turned out he didn't have the support on the ground like Kerry did. The "Dean Scream" happened AFTER Dean already lost Iowa because if you listen to his speech you'd hear him mention coming in third place in Iowa and how he thought it'd never happen. So there's no "Skull and Bones" connection there. At least nothing other than talk.
Gravel needs to work on knowing when to restrain, he had it all going but got too excited towards the end. At this point I don't think anyone seriously believes he can win or anything but what he is doing is often saying very truthful and/or challenging things to the top tiers who we in turn can judge by how they respond, don't respond, you know react. And I find the more cutting remarks he makes that need addressing don't by the top tiers. The part where he said it's funny how those who pray make wars (rough quotation ) was an awesome moment.
Also, in all seriousness, I think the Iowa straw poll was rigged in the end. One of Romney's "leadership team members" were in charge of the behind the doors vote recount or whatever it was, and now there's sites and articles all discussing how the math doesnt add up , for example "It was reported by local TV news stations before the event that upwards of 45,000 Republicans would arrive to meet candidates and cast their votes, however this number was dwindled down to between 30,000 and 33,000 according to the Iowa GOP's projected figures.
The number of voters then decreased by another sizable margin to around 26,000 the next day, only for the final figure to drop EVEN FURTHER to 14,302 actual votes cast.
Even if the immediate figures of 45,000 and 33,000 were wrong and the Iowa GOP grossly overestimated the figures, with only 26,000 tickets being sold, this still does not account for the other 12, 000 tickets that suddenly disappeared. One has to ask the question why did 12,000 people buy tickets at $35 each and not vote?"
"State Auditor David Vaudt (who unofficially certified the vote count) said that there were only 2 machines out of the 60 that were inconsistent (paper printout vs. electronic tabulation) and needed to be recounted. Mary Tiffany of the Iowa GOP said that a total of approximately 1500 votes were re-fed into the Diebold machines. Since we know that there were only two machines that were a problem and one of them contained 500 votes, then the second machine must have contained about 1000 ballots, which is more than FOUR TIMES what the ‘average’ machine should contain based on a total vote of 14,301. It seems more likely that there were actually 3 problem machines, and the true average per machine was about 500 votes, which would have resulted in a total vote of about 30,000 which is twice the official total vote count. "
We have a voting system with no paper trails and behind-doors operations, and we're discussing these cantidates like it's a free election.
frankly, those being ignored, from kucinich to richardson to edwards/coulter, deserve to be ignored. obama has won the contest....clinton will keep him honest, true and smart, she is the most capable and qualified challenger....setting aside clinton and obama, the rest seem to be involved for personal and selfish reasons-- either padding their archives, or practicing for the next cycle or two (kucinich was a nut in 00, and now he's actually a good candidate, so practice has real value....but at whose expense?)
so if any of these candidates were serious about their selfless motivations for running, they'd all step aside and contribute toward getting obama nominated and helping the dems win 08...the distinctions are false, the disputes are petty and meaningless (is obama experienced enough? hehee)
lopaloo102 @ 112:
so its been decided then ? well fuck thanks for letting us know , its going to be swell!
tyree @ 113:
so its been decided then ? well fuck thanks for letting us know , its going to be swell!
quite welcome...but it's obvious to anybody that takes an honest, detached and clinical look at the contest....
GB @ 4:
Actually, I think Dennis would go right at them and show them for what they are: Vacuous talking heads who wouldn't be able to think their way out of a paper bag. It'd be fun to watch!
Go Dennis!
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!
PollM @ 15:
Perhaps more people chose him than any of the other candidates?
Just a thought.
lopaloo102 @ 114:
quite welcome...but it's obvious to anybody that takes an honest, detached and clinical look at the contest....
Tyree,
You should know better than to feed the trolls. This "person" is exactly why we need to ignore the MSM and become activist. Individuals like this would quickly dissolve in a rational debate on the issues, much like the candidates this person supports. They quickly descend into broad brush characterizations or the standard name calling that they cannot refuse to invoke as part of their preprinted viewpoints.
funny, you guys starting swearing and calling names, not me.
[Deleted. Please restrict your comments to the topic and not other posters]
Che's Lounge @ 117:
Tyree,
You should know better than to feed the trolls. This "person" is exactly why we need to ignore the MSM and become activist. Individuals like this would quickly dissolve in a rational debate on the issues, much like the candidates this person supports. They quickly descend into broad brush characterizations or the standard name calling that they cannot refuse to invoke as part of their preprinted viewpoints.
well ive allways felt that trolls are like cancers youve got to cut them up and get all the way down into thier roots, trolls love me , why just the other night one named oh hell now i forgot his name ,he tried to cut me up and then one of our own butted in and helped him , now im not going to mention the dupes name but hes 72 yrs old and says he was in the second divishion in 54, but id reamed his ass except i had to set the dupe straight too, like they say snakes crawl at night!
I watched bits and pieces of this one and you know, if nerds ruled the earth then debates like these would replace sporting events. The stage, the football styled headshots of smiling candidates, even the popultary percentages presented like stats.
These things are coming off entirely too polished to appear genuine.
When are they going to start winnowing it down?
One more candidate and they could start their own baseball team.
And I hate baseball.
Tyree,
Like to scrap? Well it's a target rich environment. I get the urge myself sometimes, but I'm trying to tone down. I'll not bother you again. I'll just enjoy the fireworks. Go get 'em!
Comments are closed on this entry